By Jakub Grygiel, Public Discourse.
Was the removal and arrest of Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan dictator in power since 2013, justified according to the just war tradition?
The answer is yes, with a small caveat. It will depend, in fact, on what happens in the next weeks and months in Venezuela, that is, on whether the larger purpose of this military action—the establishment of better political conditions—will be accomplished.
The American operation in Caracas is a rare, perhaps unique, form of military action. It is not an invasion, followed by occupation, of a hostile state. It is not a war, requiring long-term involvement of military forces and causing widespread destruction. It is not a mere arrest of an individual done by law enforcement agencies. And it is not a violent decapitation strike that eliminates the leadership of a state, replacing it with another faction or a more friendly individual. The regime has not changed, the opposition is not in power, the country is not destroyed, the material devastation and the number of enemy casualties (most of them Cuban forces protecting Maduro from his own people) are minimal, and American forces are back in the safety of offshore ships and bases.
It is therefore difficult to categorize the American action in Caracas. It is a stunning operation that surprised everyone. So far, the main criticism seems to be that Trump ordered it, rather than the critics’ evaluating it on its merits. The EU, for instance, has issued a confused statement calling for “calm and restraint by all actors,” as if the U.S. were engaging in a prolonged bombing campaign. Right now, neither the U.S. nor the Venezuelan regime is fighting: bombs are not flying, the communist henchmen are not shooting. The socialist government in Spain was even more bewildered, asserting that it “did not recognize the Maduro regime, … [but] neither will it recognize an intervention that violates international law.” It remains unclear what “recognizing” a swift special forces operation means; not to mention that it is doubtful that international law protects an illegitimate regime. Sovereignty is not a protective layer for illicit activities or crimes against humanity.